Quick notes (and I'm paying for this in sleep time. ><)
It's not a good idea for Republic and Monarchy to be on the same branch even if it makes sense... In the past there was the religious branch for warring nations that want monarchies, and there was the academic branch for peaceful nations that want republics. This required a general choice of players, with the propoesed tech tree, they could just research and see what they need when the time comes - too simple.

Medieval tech tree should be set up so cannons are avialable before musketmen, as it was in history. (Cannons took a long time to be refined enough for simple hand rifles to be creates.)
Proposed Medieval tree may be problematic, the whole thing fuses into basically two big research paths with a couple different possible orders of research... I would elaborate if I had the time and power, but I'll leave that for tomorrow.

Industrial age has the same problem but a worse case of it... It needs to somehow be constructed so you have to choose between a few good end-goals, and not just between a few different paths to the same ones.

Modern seems good at a glance, I'll see if I ahve any complaints to add tomorrow.
Good night.

What is Imperialism doing after Enlightenment...? Wouldn't that be tied to Naval Tactics?

With Imperialism I mean the end 19th century - belle epoque period.

RE Rome being 6 on the power scale, I see this as a good thing...


I don't see it as a good thing.
In this mod there are stronger civs and weaker civs, but inside certain bounds.
If they are too strong, there's no way they can be crippled later. When half of Europe is conquered the game is over: no one can stop them, and there's no fun.

I like this idea, but I still think the Romans should be powerful enough to rise to historical empire or something near it... And btw, why do they get the Ballista AND the War Wagon? :confused:


War Wagon is Persian

Just had a thought (as I'm reading through the thread)... Romans could have a different Warrior than usual, same as the rest stat-wise, but upgrading to Legion which replaces Spear and Sword at Iron Working (if you wanna keep Legions in Sword line, then give the romans a seperate Spearman that upgrades to Legion while the rest upgrade to Pikeman, if you wanna move it to Spear line then there's no problem.)


The problem is already solved, making them replace spearmen (and come later)

Im not a very good visualizer in this stuff, so I will leave it to you technophiles to fight this battle ;p

Medieval tech tree should be set up so cannons are avialable before musketmen, as it was in history.

This seems better removing Chemistry

Also, Rhye, is there any chance you might move Espionage to back in the Ancient times? Spies have been around forever - even the Sun Tzu, written near 2000 BC, has an entire chapter on them. To say that they first appeared in the Industrial age is fairly arrogant, I'd think.

I removed the tech. So basically I can assign the building to any tech I want.

C'mon. If you put spies in the ancient era, tell me youre gonna plop drafting there too.
At the very least, it belongs in the Middle Ages, during which time period it became essential, with mass hordes of conscripted soldiers backing up the well trained primary group.

My opinions:

- The Early Aircraft Carrier sounds like a good idea. Definitely a big difference between modern and WW1 carriers.

- The SAM Destroyer sounds redundant to me.

- The Cruise Missle Destroyer is brilliant, although personally I think Destroyers and Cruisers should naturally be able to hold one Cruise Missile and Battleships two.

- The Assault Ship sounds great.

- The Modern Infantry sounds redundant with the TOW Infantry, although I guess it might not be. Maybe Modern Infantry would take the stats of TOW Infantry, then we bump TOW down a little and make Guerillas upgrade to it?

- Of all the 1960's units you mentioned, the only ones I really cared for were the SP Artillery and Flak. The rest sound redundant.

Personally, though, I would like to see America's second UU be the B-52. It was a bad-ass crazy bomber, and is definitely UU material as opposed to the A-Bomb Rhye talks about. I'd also like to see the Ironclad scrapped and replaced with the Dreadnought, the ship that sparked the pre-WW1 naval arms race. It was a huge step in naval technology, completely outdating it's predecessors and giving all countries a hope to catch up and build a new navy.


I don't think Battleships should hold cruise missiles, they would become too powerful. The US only has a few real BB's left and they aren't used as missile platforms.

The Modern Infantry was supposed to be the default infantry unit in the modern era instead of the Mech Inf. I guess you could default to the TOW Inf but that is a different line and has defensive bombard which the infantry line does not. I quite like the fact that Civs can still build guerillas after you have taken all of their rubber and aluminium. Seems quite realistic. So I wouldn't want them to upgrade any more.

I don't think an upgrade to the tank is redundant simply because the stats between Tank and Modern Armour are so large. I also think Modern Armour should be more expensive to keep per turn.

In fact it might be good if some units are prohibitively expensive to keep. That way you could build them for short wars but would have to sell them in peace time because they are too expensive to maintain continuously.

I would definitely prefer something other than the A-Bomb as the second American UU. I'm not too sure about the B52 though. In game terms any nation rich enough to build lots of bombers should be able to have them. Definitely a nice idea though, especially if the range was large enough. America could strike targets far away without getting involved in a ground war. Sort of realistic!

I would go with the Ironclad/Dreadnought replacement - I never have liked the Ironclad graphic.

So what do you think of B-52 + something else?
Aegis cruiser or A-Bomb or marines.

If everyone likes the B52 idea I would go with that + a Marine unit.

Also, Rhye, is there any chance you might move Espionage to back in the Ancient times? Spies have been around forever - even the Sun Tzu, written near 2000 BC, has an entire chapter on them. To say that they first appeared in the Industrial age is fairly arrogant, I'd think.

Whatever you do, don't put invisible/spy ground units in the game. I found DyP to be almost unplayable because of the loop your computer sometimes goes into trying to calculate where they are. Waiting twenty minutes between turns on a 2 GHz 1GB RAM PC is pretty ridiculous. Units representing individual spies on a map of this size is also pretty stupid ;)

Whatever you do, don't put invisible/spy ground units in the game. I found DyP to be almost unplayable because of the loop your computer sometimes goes into trying to calculate where they are. Waiting twenty minutes between turns on a 2 GHz 1GB RAM PC is pretty ridiculous. Units representing individual spies on a map of this size is also pretty stupid ;)


Don't worry, I won't do it ;)

If everyone likes the B52 idea I would go with that + a Marine unit.

I'd prefer B52 and AEGIS cruiser. But I'm not sure, I need more information on it (historical and about gameplay) before removing the unit from all civs.



I quite like the fact that Civs can still build guerillas after you have taken all of their rubber and aluminium. Seems quite realistic. So I wouldn't want them to upgrade any more.


I agree on this. Guerrilla warfare will be a tech postponed to early modern age, leaving early form of guerrilla to partisans.
TOW needs a different role, or need to be replaced with modern infantry.


I don't think an upgrade to the tank is redundant simply because the stats between Tank and Modern Armour are so large. I also think Modern Armour should be more expensive to keep per turn.

In fact it might be good if some units are prohibitively expensive to keep. That way you could build them for short wars but would have to sell them in peace time because they are too expensive to maintain continuously.


The tank upgrade is necessary. Right now only 3-4 civs have rubber and can build tanks. Standard modern ground warfare should be made by tanks. And leaving the very expensive modern armor to who can afford it.



I would go with the Ironclad/Dreadnought replacement - I never have liked the Ironclad graphic.

Tell me if the ironclad graphics isn't realistic, I'll replace it. But if this is the only problem, this is all I will do. I think that ironclads are much more important than dreadnoughts.

C'mon. If you put spies in the ancient era, tell me youre gonna plop drafting there too.
At the very least, it belongs in the Middle Ages, during which time period it became essential, with mass hordes of conscripted soldiers backing up the well trained primary group.


urban militia can be drafted

On the american UU

I would prefer to see a b52 to an f15. the B52 is probably the worlds most feared aircraft - the fact it has served the US for such a long time really shows its superiority.

I don't like the US marines as a UU - America has not been particularly successful in large scale warfare (what ever they might assert - not trying to upset anyone it is true) the marines have always suffered ill discipline, appaling friendly fire casulaties. And to be honest it is very hard to separate any success they have experienced from the tanks, planes etc that support them - they differ very little from anyone elses marine units really. I would prefer B52 and A-bomb.

For military powers it is easy to see dozens of UU's - for example England could have any of: man-o-war; welsh longbowmen; green coats (inveted modern warfare, reinvented camoflage, used weapons with replaceable parts, opperated in small stealth units); ghurkars (cheap and effective modern mercanaries); spitfire; commandos; SAS (arguably the worlds most elite and efective military outfit).

Incidentaly, why is replacement parts where it is in the tech tree? Replaceable parts was what allowed Britain to triumph in the napoleonic wars.

Spanish frigates and Japanese destroyers use the Aegis radar fire-control system, but the system was designed by the Americans.

I don't like the US marines as a UU - America has not been particularly successful in large scale warfare (what ever they might assert - not trying to upset anyone it is true) the marines have always suffered ill discipline, appaling friendly fire casulaties. And to be honest it is very hard to separate any success they have experienced from the tanks, planes etc that support them - they differ very little from anyone elses marine units really. I would prefer B52 and A-bomb.


I agree


For military powers it is easy to see dozens of UU's - for example England could have any of: man-o-war; welsh longbowmen; green coats (inveted modern warfare, reinvented camoflage, used weapons with replaceable parts, opperated in small stealth units); ghurkars (cheap and effective modern mercanaries); spitfire; commandos; SAS (arguably the worlds most elite and efective military outfit).


Same for France. Once again, I ask what to do: should I replace the problematic Grande Armée with some other units? I put the Grand Battery in the new BIQ, instead of Imperial guard or Voltigeur or Gallic swordsman. Do you agree?



Incidentaly, why is replacement parts where it is in the tech tree? Replaceable parts was what allowed Britain to triumph in the napoleonic wars.

I left it where it was. I don't know....where should it be?

Tell me if the ironclad graphics isn't realistic, I'll replace it. But if this is the only problem, this is all I will do. I think that ironclads are much more important than dreadnoughts.

The trouble is that the first "iron clads" had masts and prominent chimney stacks and the heavier armoured Dreadnoughts which replaced them looked more like a battleship, but also with masts. So, the little flat graphic with a turret doesn't really look like anything at all!

HMS Dreadnought was still an ironclad, it was just bigger and better and had far better guns and armour than anything before it, thereby rendering everything else obsolete.

Have a look at the image; on the left is HMS Dreadnought and the right is an earlier Ironclad HMS Agincourt.

Yeah I'm not sure about Frances UU - I don'd think the grand armee will work, the game engine doesn't seem to like army units at all. I like the sound of the grand battery though.

On repaceable parts: this is a hard area, as that region of the tech tree seems wrong to me already. Like why is industrialisation after steam, when industrialisation came first and was initially water powered.

Replaceable parts were first used in weaponary by the British around 1805 - the baker rifle had all its parts interchangeable.

I don't really know what you should alter in the tech tree, or whether we should just accept these small tech tree perculiarities.

The game graphic for ironclads is based on the American Civil War ironclads - like below.
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~jenkins/ironclads/Atlanta.jpg

Like the rifleman is based on the ACW Rifleman not the Napoleonic rifleman (that was not only superior but preceeded it by many decades).

The game graphic for ironclads is based on the American Civil War ironclads - like below.
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~jenkins/ironclads/Atlanta.jpg

Like the rifleman is based on the ACW Rifleman not the Napoleonic rifleman (that was not only superior but preceeded it by many decades).

That might explain things. If America was the only nation to build Ironclads like that then the Civ graphic should definitely be replaced as most major Europen nations and Japan built ships that looked like Dreadnought. The US also built Kearsage and Mississippi class Ironclads which also had masts and chimneys.

Like why is industrialisation after steam, when industrialisation came first and was initially water powered.


Steam engine was invented in 1769.
Industrialization of the major european countries happened during the 19th century.
What's wrong?

very simple - this will be the standard ironclad:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27237

and the current one will be the American-flavour animation.

Like why is industrialisation after steam, when industrialisation came first and was initially water powered.Steam engine was invented in 1769.
Industrialization of the major european countries happened during the 19th century.
What's wrong?
In 1698 Thomas Savery patented a pump with hand-operated valves to raise water from mines by suction produced by condensing steam. In about 1712 another Englishman, Thomas Newcomen, developed a more efficient steam engine with a piston separating the condensing steam from the water. In 1765 James Watt greatly improved the Newcomen engine by adding a separate condenser to avoid heating and cooling the cylinder with each stroke. Watt then developed a new engine that rotated a shaft instead of providing the simple up-and-down motion of the pump, and he added many other improvements to produce a practical power plant.

The term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83) to describe England's economic development from 1760 to 1840. Since Toynbee's time the term has been more broadly applied.

Steam engine was invented in 1769.
Industrialization of the major european countries happened during the 19th century.
What's wrong?

Well that all depends what you call a steam engine, crude steam engines were seen as early as 1698 - and the first modern(ish) steam engine was built by Newcomen in 1705.

I cannot see that railroads should preceed industrialisation, when industrialisation began in the late 18th century and the railroad really kicked of several decades later.

very simple - this will be the standard ironclad:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27237

and the current one will be the American-flavour animation.

excellent :goodjob:

Well that all depends what you call a steam engine, crude steam engines were seen as early as 1698 - and the first modern(ish) steam engine was built by Newcomen in 1705.

I cannot see that railroads should preceed industrialisation, when industrialisation began in the late 18th century and the railroad really kicked of several decades later.
A cumbersome steam carriage for roads was built in France by Nicholas-Joseph Cugnot as early as 1769. Richard Trevithick in England was the first to use a steam carriage on a railway; in 1803 he built a steam locomotive that in February 1804 made a successful run on a horsecar route in Wales. The adaptation of the steam engine to railways became a commercial success with the Rocket of English engineer George Stephenson in 1829.

Just wanted to say if Tasmania hasnt got any whales of yet they should be added we had a massive whaling industry untill we killed them all. It was once even said to be unsafe to go boating in the Derwant river (which is the River Hobart our capital is based on) for fear of being damaged by the whales.

I like the B-52 idea for a UU. But what about a special WW2 paratrooper they made them famous with such regiments as the 101st

Just wanted to say if Tasmania hasnt got any whales of yet they should be added we had a massive whaling industry untill we killed them all. It was once even said to be unsafe to go boating in the Derwant river (which is the River Hobart our capital is based on) for fear of being damaged by the whales.

there are whales in tasmania in the map....

maybe railroad should be moved to industrialisation.

the B-52 idea for a UU. But what about a special WW2 paratrooper they made them famous with such regiments as the 101st
I think you have mistaken the B-52 for the B-17.

Nono, he means that the Paratroopers were made famous by America with the 101st

As to Marines, America has used them more than any other branch of the military; sure they have tanks and whatnot, but that was a fairly recent (WW2) addition; the first (American) marine corps was born in the Revolutionary War.

American marines have been famous as soldiers; in fact, during the Boxer Uprising, American troops were counted as second only to Japanese soldiers, despite German, French, and Russian troops being present as well.

Marines like Smedly Butler are famous for their exploits, oftentimes taking only a single company and routing thousands of hostile soldiers while on patrol.

They have never been known for:


the marines have always suffered ill discipline, appaling friendly fire casulaties.


And have always served as an elite; frequently acting as officers and trainers for foriegn armies. A marine Sergeant could leave the marines and get a position as a major or colonel in any other army in the world.

They were the primary arm of Amercian colonialism, and have been in every major AND minor American conflict. They pretty much do everything that every other service does.

Also, replaceable parts was something developed by an American, Eli Whitney, also famous for the Cotton Gin. So ;p

Gotta go to classes, late for Euro hehe

Hey all!

Okay, what I have done is just taken away America and added culture to all the Civs all have 1000 culture and some have 10,000 culture.(Don't worry I have turned off culture win!) This is to give more territiry to Civs so they can build there empires without worry about another Civ takening the land too soon.

Enjoy

KOC :king: (I've reuplaoded the version!)

PS.. This is just for fun and maybe it will spring up some new ideas for Rhyes mod.

PSII.. Changed mod to default rules so now you must turn off culture flipping! I needed to do this because if I remove culture flipping in mod settings it also auto-reomves Scientific leader?(BuG!..I think?)

sounds like an original idea...but have you considered that AI doesn't settle in his own territory?

I sure hope you are guessing?..lol I really hope they will settle in there own territory!

KOC

PS.. I've updated the culture mod version I posted above.

BTW to everyone:

-replaceable parts will go after the scientifc method (before electricity)

-i see that most of you don't like the A-bomb as american UU. what do you think if I replace the Tactical Nuke with it (for all the civs) and leave the ICBM as the only nuclear missile? It seems the best solution to me.

-what do you think if I add the U2 spy plane as an upgrade of the balloon? (as it is recon-only)

Rhye, I like the above idea's just fine!!(Good work and I say YES!) The culture mod does have A.I. build within culture but they tend to go for the unculture territory 1st. It has alot of good it does fo game play but still it causes alot of other issues.

Oh,well I tried!

KOC

I don't see it as a good thing.
In this mod there are stronger civs and weaker civs, but inside certain bounds.
If they are too strong, there's no way they can be crippled later. When half of Europe is conquered the game is over: no one can stop them, and there's no fun.
Well, at least give them a fighting chance to slightly expand around the rim of the mediterranean... You can slow down their exponential growth by making their starting area very rich at first but having it degrade slowly over time through negative invisible resources... But really, if you intend to have the Byzantines in the game and have them survive the ancient age, none of these ideas matter cause for Rome to rise it has to go through the Byzantines...
I beg of you to remove the Byzantines... I mean, bloody heck, they're represented by THREE OTHER NATIONS and they block the rise of those three other very significant empires... I do not underestimate the importance of the Byzantines, but for the same reason that I had rathered see (undeserving) Israel in the game rather than (more deserving) Sumeria, the Byzantines must go! If not for any reason other than their triple representation, please consider removing them from the Xpack altogether, and not only in a civ-pack...


War Wagon is Persian
D'oh! Me and my non-existant attention span...


The problem is already solved, making them replace spearmen (and come later)
Okie dokie. But maybe Roman warriors should still upgrade to Legions via the method I proposed? This would give them an early edge with mass upgrade rushes but would later require that they build units from a line they have no previous units of (no Swordsmen to upgrade).

In fact it might be good if some units are prohibitively expensive to keep. That way you could build them for short wars but would have to sell them in peace time because they are too expensive to maintain continuously.
Due to game engine restrictions, the only way to do that is to make most units not take upkeep, but make the upkeep for each gov't high and their free units low, so you pay alot for having alot of high-upkeep units (with the no-upkeep units representing units with upkeep low enough to not be notice on the grand scale, or you can think of the high upkeep of the upkeep units as covering the no-upkeep unit upkeeps as well.)

Here's an idea for a new line of units... Mercenary units: High cost, no upkeep (you pay for their job, they supply themselves with what they need when they need it), and stats appropriate for whatever unit it is... Dunno what importance mercenaries have had historically and what importance they would have in-game, just an idea.

RE U2 replacing Balloon: sounds great.

Blasphemous, I need your feedback on the tech trees. I'm at home with the flue for some days, so I can use this time to make the tree. I need to know what you were going to say yesterday.




Well, at least give them a fighting chance to slightly expand around the rim of the mediterranean... You can slow down their exponential growth by making their starting area very rich at first but having it degrade slowly over time through negative invisible resources... But really, if you intend to have the Byzantines in the game and have them survive the ancient age, none of these ideas matter cause for Rome to rise it has to go through the Byzantines...
I beg of you to remove the Byzantines... I mean, bloody heck, they're represented by THREE OTHER NATIONS and they block the rise of those three other very significant empires... I do not underestimate the importance of the Byzantines, but for the same reason that I had rathered see (undeserving) Israel in the game rather than (more deserving) Sumeria, the Byzantines must go! If not for any reason other than their triple representation, please consider removing them from the Xpack altogether, and not only in a civ-pack...


I will not change my opinion on the standard X-pack. Byzantines are more important than Poland. Instead, Sumeria and Israel were both on the same level. And again, Poland would cripple Germany. While only Ottomans would benefit from Byzantine removal, not the Romans.
But I have full respect of your opinions and for this reason I promised a civ-pack. What's wrong?


Okie dokie. But maybe Roman warriors should still upgrade to Legions via the method I proposed? This would give them an early edge with mass upgrade rushes but would later require that they build units from a line they have no previous units of (no Swordsmen to upgrade).


I can't. In that way they would follow the path leading to guerrillas. Instead I want them to be upgradeable to fusiliers, etc.


Mercenary units:


If you remeber once I told this. But soon after I found that the upkeep can't be changed per one unit. So they are not implementable.


RE U2 replacing Balloon: sounds great.


Alright. I have the animations and the pictures.
What tech should allow them?

I'm tired so I'm gonna number the issues and not split the quote.
1) Blasphemous, I need your feedback on the tech trees. I'm at home with the flue for some days, so I can use this time to make the tree. I need to know what you were going to say yesterday.

2) I will not change my opinion on the standard X-pack. Byzantines are more important than Poland. Instead, Sumeria and Israel were both on the same level. And again, Poland would cripple Germany. While only Ottomans would benefit from Byzantine removal, not the Romans.
But I have full respect of your opinions and for this reason I promised a civ-pack. What's wrong?

3) I can't. In that way they would follow the path leading to guerrillas. Instead I want them to be upgradeable to fusiliers, etc.

4) If you remeber once I told this. But soon after I found that the upkeep can't be changed per one unit. So they are not implementable.

5) Alright. I have the animations and the pictures.
What tech should allow them?
1. I'm home on vacation (the Sukkot holiday) for the next ten days or so, I'll write as much as I can about the tech tree either later tonight or tomorrow. I'll be online pretty much every warking moment over the next few days, so we can keep in rapid contact... Just a bit busy and tired at the moment.

2. Poland doesn't necessarily need to be the one to replace the Byzantines, there are plenty of other civs that can be in instead of the Byz and not weaken major European powers. And I beg to differ about Byz not bothering Rome: for Rome to begin expanding eastwards they need to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire. I wouldn't mind if the Ottomans and Romans went halfsies on Byzantine territory, but as it is, I've never seen an AI-controlled Rome become world Leader and Rome most definately WAS the world leader in civ3 terms in real history. But I guess I don't mind if the Byz change is made in a civpack - as long as the civpack is for RoX and not RoC, because I will probably stop playing RoC once RoX is out. (RoX rocks. :D)

3. I mean, give the romans a different Warrior (same animations, same stats, same cost, just different upgrade path) that upgrades to Legion. That way once Legions come in the Romans will upgrade all their spears and warriors to Legion, and in the middle ages they will have to build a brand-new offensive armies as the Legions will merge into the Spear line.

4. But there is a No Upkeep flag. What I'm proposing is high shield cost, but no upkeep. As I said, mercenaries supply themselves (and upkeep is not payment, it's support and supply), you just pay them for their work. But as I said they may have no merit at all for inclusion, just an idea.

5. Ask someone else, I'm not very knowledgeable in this field.

I'm tired so I'm gonna number the issues and not split the quote.

1. I'm home on vacation (the Sukkot holiday) for the next ten days or so, I'll write as much as I can about the tech tree either later tonight or tomorrow. I'll be online pretty much every warking moment over the next few days, so we can keep in rapid contact... Just a bit busy and tired at the moment.

2. But I guess I don't mind if the Byz change is made in a civpack - as long as the civpack is for RoX and not RoC, because I will probably stop playing RoC once RoX is out. (RoX rocks. :D)

3. I mean, give the romans a different Warrior (same animations, same stats, same cost, just different upgrade path) that upgrades to Legion. That way once Legions come in the Romans will upgrade all their spears and warriors to Legion, and in the middle ages they will have to build a brand-new offensive armies as the Legions will merge into the Spear line.

4. But there is a No Upkeep flag. What I'm proposing is high shield cost, but no upkeep. As I said, mercenaries supply themselves (and upkeep is not payment, it's support and supply), you just pay them for their work. But as I said they may have no merit at all for inclusion, just an idea.

5. Ask someone else, I'm not very knowledgeable in this field.

1. Please write something by tomorrow late morning, so that I won't spend the whole day in doing nothing, just like today.

2. Yes it is for the RoX.
LOL! "RoX"! :lol: nice abreviation

3. Aaah, now I see. Sorry, I didn't understand at first. Well, it's a good idea: if it works I'll apply it to other civs with the same problem (due to the cavalry split)

4. Mercenaries should be exactly the opposite: no initial cost (available in the moment you call them) and very expensive to upkeep.

Another thing:
I noticed that in the standard biq jet fighters and bombers don't upgrade to stealth units. Is there a good reason for building those units from scratch?

1. Hmmm... I'm gonna probably wake up at about 11:00 or 12:00 GMT, I'll make it my first priority...

3. It may be a bit more problematic with units in the middle of a line, because then lines merge. But with line-starting units like the Warrior there's nothing at all to lose if you want it to upgrade to a different line than usual.

4. I know they should, but that's not possible so what I suggested can be used because it does make sense in a way and it would in fact have a use in the game by allowing small civs with high production capabilities to build mercenaries that would not drain the national funds and would still be pretty powerful.

6) Thing about jets
6. Well, IIRC Stealth are expensive and not totally superior so they can be used in conjunction with the earlier air units... But honestly the only air unit I build alot of is Bomber and I don't recall the last time I built a stealth plane.

I have to say that I disagree with the no-upkeep mercenaries. Rhye is right about them - you should call on them only when you need them and dismiss them as soon as you can. And, as a player, I know that I would end up building mercs and only mercs once I filled up my supply.

horse archers are not upgrading to cavalry or lancers, they seem to be a dead end.

Please do not take away the ability of rome to upgrade warriors into legions, that would be too drastic a penalty.

Fusiliers are 5/5 and cavalry/lancers are 6/3, shouldn't the horse units have a more superior attack rating over the gunpowder foot units? Maybe change fusilier to 3/5/1 as in original RoC.

Yes, there is a good reason for regular planes not upgrading into stealths; the damn stealth thingies are so expensive to build, and are not very effective at combat (look at stealth fighter stats vs jet) The stealth bombers are nice, but since IRL they cost so much to build and maintain I think the designers decided to force you to build them from scratch.

I always preferred that, as it just felt cool to be able to build a few stealths and do a long range strike with them out of nowhere ;p

@horton: I think Rhye moved the attack of footsies down a bit

Cavalry shouldn't have a real significant advantage in attack strength over foot soldiers. Because then infantry would only be useful for defense. Cavalry shouldn't have a clear attack advantage in addition to their speed and retreat advantage.

I said just incase there wernt any whales near tas i havent had units near there so i didnt knwo. you reminded me by mentioning New Zealands supply.

With a Civpack removing Byzantines can we expect a similar one introducing Australian or New Zealand Aborigines? That isnt 70 Megabytes.

Get rid of the Byzantines and add a population for Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. They can be "Austral-Asia". Searfaring and argricultural. Their special unit can be a warrior with a boomerang.

Australian Aborigines are hunter, gatherer nomads. Indonesians are seafarers and fishing related. If a civ can be added, it would more realistic.

I have to agree with Blasphemous in that Byzantium gets in the way of Roman and Greek expansion. I would also prefer a SE Asian or Australasian civ replacement. However, how do you stop the Ottomans from expanding up into central Europe? It would be more realistic if Anatolia wasn't connected to Europe at the bosphorous but how would that affect game play?

Re: Stealth. As everyone else said, they are too damned expensive to build and operate. Upgrading bombers to stealth bombers is a no-no!

Re: U2 spyplane. Upgrading a balloon to a U2? That's kind of a large step! But it is possible. The U2 was first used in the mid 1950's and if you are changing the tech tree anyway, just put it somewhere in the post-WWII position. Say in with the Tank upgrade! :D

horse archers are not upgrading to cavalry or lancers, they seem to be a dead end.

Please do not take away the ability of rome to upgrade warriors into legions, that would be too drastic a penalty.

Fusiliers are 5/5 and cavalry/lancers are 6/3, shouldn't the horse units have a more superior attack rating over the gunpowder foot units? Maybe change fusilier to 3/5/1 as in original RoC.

yes I switched them back to 4/5.

Horse archers are upgrading to cavalry, while horsemen and knights upgrade to lancers. Instead of dividing into light and heavy cavalry, I prefered dividing the ranged cavalry.

And with Blasphemous' idea of an alternative warrior, legions can upgrade to warrior and then follow the spearman path.
So I can decide again what I want to replace (spearman or swordsman)

Re: U2 spyplane. Upgrading a balloon to a U2? That's kind of a large step! But it is possible. The U2 was first used in the mid 1950's and if you are changing the tech tree anyway, just put it somewhere in the post-WWII position. Say in with the Tank upgrade! :D

the tank upgrade.....
the new tank can be called Armor or Heavy Tank.
Or I can call the WWI tank "Light Tank" (in fact they were poorly armoured) and the WWII and post-WWII tank "Tank".
And why not, rename the modern armor "Modern Tank" :)

Which one's better? (Rememeber, in italian it's the same ("carro armato") so I don't know the difference)

Oh, I've seen what Horton was saying. I forgot to check their upgrade option.

Now, another question before I change the biq:

is it OK for:
-B52 and AEGIS Cruiser American UUs.
-A-Bomb replaces Tactical nuke

Modern Tank doesn't sound right... Main Battle Tank sounds better, and iirc that name has been used in other mods for the modern heavy tank.

I don't know about AEGIS cruiser being an American UU... There are plenty of other things that are more distinctly american and more influential in American military history. Even giving them boosted marines would be better than giving them the AEGIS imho.

About Legions, I think they should replace both Swordsmen and Spearmen... The Romans get Spearmen with Bronze Working, and then when they get Iron Working they upgrade all their spears and warriors to Legions which last into the middle ages, when they become obsolete, upgrade into the Spear line (whatever is in that line right after Pikemen), and then they need to start diversifying their army a bit since there will be fast powerful units available to them for offense.

And now on the tech trees (writing ideas and concerns and solution as they come, sorry for the erratic style of writing):

Ancient:
Maybe Warrior code should be required for Iron Working? The organized kind of units represented by Swordsmen and the UUs that replace them (Legions especially) should not be available before simpler units of archers.
One of the religious techs (polytheism or monotheism) should still be requisite for Monarchy, to avoid the situation I desribed earlier where a player would just research along one path no matter what and then choose a government when they time came... But then we in fact have teh sae problem again because you would still have to research the two same lines no matter what government you want. Okay, here's an idea:
Mathematics requires Alphabet but not Writing.
Monarchy requires Currency and Polytheism.
Republic stays the same.
I know it's not AS logical as your proposed setup, but it would force the player into more choice and also it would leave Monarchy easier to achieve than Republic, meaning we're likely to see more Monarchies around.
I think perhaps a distinction should be made between ancient monarchies which were really just advanced despotisms, and medieval feudal monarchies which were more institutionalized... and stuff. I would say make Monarchy a bit more similar to Despotism, then rename the Feudalism gov't (which was not an actual form of government anyway) "Feudal Monarchy" and make it a bit more similar to Monarchy...

Medieval:
I'm trying to think how the tech tree could be changed so it would still make sense but not become just one big line of techs where you only have a choice earlier on what side to start on... It would help if Magnetism was part of the top line and not the bottom one... Perhaps make Astronomy require Magnetism and Magnetism require Education? Then the military tech line would only merge with the spiritual/social/intellectual line via the naval line at the end of the age. Again, a little bit of realism discarded for more gameplay variety.
And what exactly is Physics going to give? That tech is another connection between the military line adn teh naval line, and even though it doesn't really fuse the lines (because noting requires it), it may not be the greatest idea to add such a connection between the lines if this tech is something everyone will want to research (because then they'll have to research through all three trees to get to it.)

Industrial:
Simply make Economis require nothing, and you get three seperate lines: (from top to bottom) socio-political; industrial-economical; technological; with the two latter fusing together at the end of the age.
Of course having Economics require Enlightenment wouldn't be all that bad really, it makes little difference either way, but it may be better to remove the link simply to make the distinction of lines more distinct. There was a serious problem in the original tech tree of the Industrial tech tree not giving you much of a need to decide what line to research, I think that mistake should be avoided.

Modern:
No real complaints, actually. Just maybe somehow make Superconductor come later than Laser and Robotics, since the Superconductor is in fact a future tech and should not come in before things that already exist.
Also, what will Globalisation actually do?

EDIT:
Just had an idea for the mercenaries thingy... Have a small wonder for each type of mercenaries (say "Assassin Contract" or "Pikeman Contract", depending wether you want to hire Assassins or Pikemen), that is relatively cheap to build, has VERY VERY high upkeep, produces the chosen type of mercenary every two or three turns. This wonder would become obsolete after just a couple techs, and every mercenary unit would have a zero-shield cost (so they're no use for rush-disbanding) and not upgrade to anything (or perhaps upgrade into a regular unit line at a high cost). There would be a few of these contract wonders spread across the tech tree, they should require Palace in their city so that people build them only in their capital, and any nation can hire any mercenary - for a high cost, for a while.
The idea may need to be altered a bit to work, but what do you guys think?

I agree that the US special unit should be the Marine. The US should be building very powerful "Marines" rather than tanks, modern armor. Then you have, "the US are sending in the Marines". They should be a little weaker than modern armor, and a lot cheaper.

Modern Tank doesn't sound right... Main Battle Tank sounds better, and iirc that name has been used in other mods for the modern heavy tank.


What about
Light Tank -> Tank -> Battle tank


About Legions, I think they should replace both Swordsmen and Spearmen... The Romans get Spearmen with Bronze Working, and then when they get Iron Working they upgrade all their spears and warriors to Legions which last into the middle ages, when they become obsolete, upgrade into the Spear line (whatever is in that line right after Pikemen), and then they need to start diversifying their army a bit since there will be fast powerful units available to them for offense.


In this way you would leave romans with no armies until iron working...remember, the legions come later. I think I'll make them replace swordsmen with


Ancient:
I know it's not AS logical as your proposed setup, but it would force the player into more choice and also it would leave Monarchy easier to achieve than Republic, meaning we're likely to see more Monarchies around.
I think perhaps a distinction should be made between ancient monarchies which were really just advanced despotisms, and medieval feudal monarchies which were more institutionalized... and stuff. I would say make Monarchy a bit more similar to Despotism, then rename the Feudalism gov't (which was not an actual form of government anyway) "Feudal Monarchy" and make it a bit more similar to Monarchy...


I think I'll remove alphabet. Writing and alphabet sounds the same. If you know alphabet, you know how to write!
About the gov's, let's postpone the problem.



Medieval:
I'm trying to think how the tech tree could be changed so it would still make sense but not become just one big line of techs where you only have a choice earlier on what side to start on... It would help if Magnetism was part of the top line and not the bottom one... Perhaps make Astronomy require Magnetism and Magnetism require Education? Then the military tech line would only merge with the spiritual/social/intellectual line via the naval line at the end of the age. Again, a little bit of realism discarded for more gameplay variety.
And what exactly is Physics going to give? That tech is another connection between the military line adn teh naval line, and even though it doesn't really fuse the lines (because noting requires it), it may not be the greatest idea to add such a connection between the lines if this tech is something everyone will want to research (because then they'll have to research through all three trees to get to it.)


If I postpone Astronomy too much, America will be discovered too late.
Otherwise........I could move caravels to magnetism and apply your changes.
Physics is going to give Newton's university.
It doesn't hurt strategical decisions, as it is the last researcheable tech


Industrial:
Simply make Economis require nothing, and you get three seperate lines: (from top to bottom) socio-political; industrial-economical; technological; with the two latter fusing together at the end of the age.


There are other problems:
-the last techs in the upper path must be corrected
-something must be put in the middle of the lower path to substitute Replaceable Parts



Modern:
No real complaints, actually. Just maybe somehow make Superconductor come later than Laser and Robotics, since the Superconductor is in fact a future tech and should not come in before things that already exist.
Also, what will Globalisation actually do?


So, supercondutor is a future tech? :eek: I'll move it at once!
I'll add "Mobil Warfare" at the beginning of the age, too. It will allow tanks.


Just had an idea for the mercenaries thingy... Have a small wonder for each type of mercenaries (say "Assassin Contract" or "Pikeman Contract", depending wether you want to hire Assassins or Pikemen), that is relatively cheap to build, has VERY VERY high upkeep, produces the chosen type of mercenary every two or three turns. This wonder would become obsolete after just a couple techs, and every mercenary unit would have a zero-shield cost (so they're no use for rush-disbanding) and not upgrade to anything (or perhaps upgrade into a regular unit line at a high cost). There would be a few of these contract wonders spread across the tech tree, they should require Palace in their city so that people build them only in their capital, and any nation can hire any mercenary - for a high cost, for a while.
The idea may need to be altered a bit to work, but what do you guys think?


nice idea. But there's one problem: when the wonder expires, the upkeep remains....afaik wonders can't be sold.

Gonna number these again, sorry.

1) What about
Light Tank -> Tank -> Battle tank

2) In this way you would leave romans with no armies until iron working...remember, the legions come later. I think I'll make them replace swordsmen with

3) I think I'll remove alphabet. Writing and alphabet sounds the same. If you know alphabet, you know how to write!
About the gov's, let's postpone the problem.

4) If I postpone Astronomy too much, America will be discovered too late.
Otherwise........I could move caravels to magnetism and apply your changes.
Physics is going to give Newton's university.
It doesn't hurt strategical decisions, as it is the last researcheable tech

5) There are other problems:
-the last techs in the upper path must be corrected
-something must be put in the middle of the lower path to substitute Replaceable Parts

6) So, supercondutor is a future tech? :eek: I'll move it at once!
I'll add "Mobil Warfare" at the beginning of the age, too. It will allow tanks.

7) nice idea. But there's one problem: when the wonder expires, the upkeep remains....afaik wonders can't be sold.

1. Batle Tank sounds wrong... Main Battle Tank I think is an actual term used by modern armies. But I don't really know much about this, I'll leave it to others to comment on.

2. Whaa? What kind of armies would they get before Iron Working anyway (other than spears, which they still will have)? All I said was that once they get legions they won't need Swordsmen or Spearmen and so the Legion can replace both, giving them a nice boost due to intial upgrade rushes being possible from both Warrior and spear, and later forcing them to construct a new army as their Legions upgrade into units that no longer dominate the battlefield offensively.

3. But that doesn't solve the problem. That way if you make Monarchy require Polytheism it will still require (almost) the same research for both Monarchy and Republic (except for the gv't tech itself.) You gotta force nations to choose what line to research in the ancient age, this was a major choice to make in Civ3 and I don't think it should be cahnged drastically.

4. What I proposed would make Astronomy come in a bit EARLIER, not later, becuase you would only have to research teh upper tree to get to it (while now you need to start a bit of the lower military tree to get Magnetism).

5. Please elaborate.

7. Tests need to be done on this... Are you sure upkeep continues to be active after obsoletion?

here's the second version of the tech trees.

They seem very accurate now, and I hope that the problems Blasphemous mentioned are now solved



EDIT: updated the first part. I put there a couple of wrong arrows

What about
Light Tank -> Tank -> Battle tank

As Blasphemous suggested, Battle Tank doesnt sound right. Main Battle Tank or MBT is a modern acronym for a modern heavy tank. The word tank isn't used much any more - they are described as "armour".

The graphic for the "tank" is actually a WWII US Sherman not a WWI style tank. Personally I would skip the WWI style tanks as they were used for such a short time and simply the very bottom of the learning curve.

I would suggest:
Light Tank > Heavy Tank > MBT

I've added the Light Tank with a WWI tank animation (lower stats, requires rubber).
I left the Tank and the Modern Armor with their tank and their animation.
The Tank is postponed to the beginning of Modern Times and doesn't require rubber.

OK?

I don't think WWI-style tanks need to be in, like Asclepius said, they were used for a very short while in very small numbers... It makes more sense to start with WWII-style tanks and then have them upgrade to post-WWII style tanks (some of which are still used today by poorer countries) and then for the rich countries with Aluminum there should be the MA (renamed Main Battle Tank).
The same problem is still present with the middle ages in the new tech tree... The two lines simply fuse into one after a short while... Just make Magnetism not requore Gunpowder, that should do it.
Rest of the ages seem fine, but that may change once we playtest the new techtree a bit.

I'm not dead ;)

I follow your debates / discussions with interest !

I would like playtest 1.0, that's all ! ;))

I don't think WWI-style tanks need to be in, like Asclepius said, they were used for a very short while in very small numbers... It makes more sense to start with WWII-style tanks and then have them upgrade to post-WWII style tanks (some of which are still used today by poorer countries) and then for the rich countries with Aluminum there should be the MA (renamed Main Battle Tank).
The same problem is still present with the middle ages in the new tech tree... The two lines simply fuse into one after a short while... Just make Magnetism not requore Gunpowder, that should do it.
Rest of the ages seem fine, but that may change once we playtest the new techtree a bit.


-> The fact is that industrial tree ends with the Great War. So an early tank was needed. And for the modern age, it is a generic 20th century tank.

-> I did what you asked, but found that caravels shooting without having discovered gunpowder would be odd...

I'm not dead ;)

I follow your debates / discussions with interest !

I would like playtest 1.0, that's all ! ;))

we are only at 0.2...
do you want it anyway?

Rhye, When now is the expected date of the 2.63? Because Im dying for new map update and new barbarian system.

KOC

there isn't any new barbarian system in 2.63
there'll be some changes in the add-on (barbarian units include horse archers)

if you want the biq to mod it, I can send it to you.

-> The fact is that industrial tree ends with the Great War. So an early tank was needed. And for the modern age, it is a generic 20th century tank.

-> I did what you asked, but found that caravels shooting without having discovered gunpowder would be odd...
1. Okay, then WWII has to be at the very start of the Modern Age. I think if you include a WWI style tank (which has to have pretty sucky stats) you absolutely MUST include both WWII-era light tanks and post-WWII modern tanks (since they are still used by poorer countries while WWII tanks are all but obsolete.)

2. Then just make Caravels require Saltpeter (and possibly add an inferior non-gunpowder boat for those nations that have none), not everyone who researches up the naval tech line necessarily wants to build the boats, there are other things in that line.

I'm now going to do some research on the WWII-era big guns.

I'm now going to do some research on the WWII-era big guns.

wasn't it WWI?

From here (http://www.worldwar1.com/pharc005.htm)
Probably the most discussed of all of the big guns of the Great War is the infamous Paris Gun. Also known as Lange Max (Long Max), Big Bertha (not to be confused with the 42cm Krupp howitzer given the same nick name) and William’s Gun; this gun was strategic, rather than tactical in nature, in that it was a terror weapon meant to demoralize the citizens of Paris. This forerunner to the Iraqi supergun could fire a shell 70 miles in about 170 seconds reaching a maximum altitude of 24 miles - quite a feat of German engineering for 1918. On the down side, the payload was only 15 pounds of explosive, accuracy was non-existent (you could hit Paris but not a specific target in Paris), and the whole gun would have to be rebored after 65 firings.
I think this is the kind of thing I meant... What I was thinking is to have it mobile with 1 movement point, unlike what I proposed earlier, and also unlike what I proposed earlier, give it a range of 3 or 4, low bombard rating compared to Artillery and even compared to Cannon (due to the big gun's low accuracy) but a high ROF (say 4 or even 6. If the gun gets lucky it could redline a healty unit in a single barrage.) Should be very expensive so that you don't wanna risk it getting captured by an enemy.
I'll try and do some more reasearch and see how this kind fo gun was developed in WWII.

wasn't it WWI?
Both, I was and now definately am absolutely sure it started in WWI, but iirc, it continued into WWII.

Yes, send me the .Biq please. What are the changes so far? I thought that you were removing Barbarian huts and just placing Barbarains?? Maybe I was mistaken.

xkingofwowx@yahoo.ca send the biq file there with the changes that are in it thanks.

KOC

Rhye, Ukas made a much nicer-looking Camel resource with pedia icon, since the current camel looks kinda... lame, perhaps this one should be used:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2195457&postcount=18

good. To be included in the standard mod with the next patch.

BTW, if evertything goes alright I'll send you the v0.21 tomorrow, with the new tech tree and all the fixes

Errr... Any opinion on the big gun idea and info that I brought?
Google's not being much use in finding info about WWII big guns regrettably... Any idea of other sources for research?

uuuh sorry I did not see it. Mmm, it will take some time. I'm watching the tonight's Champions League goals.
I'll tell you later :)

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/artillery.html
Interesting site on Artillery (in general and specifically in WWII), sadly no good info on especially large guns, perhaps because by then they may have been standard and refined to have a good aim through use of maps and radio? I think it may be so, it seems to make sense because the kind of artillery that was apparently used in the era this article is about was well out of visual range with the target, field observers being far away and using telephone or radio to inform the batteries where to shoot. Artillery of the WWII era could hit 2 or 3 tiles away in Civ3 terms. Some of the armies had refined their methods enough to hit very accurately and quickly. Perhaps what should be done is this:
With some WWI combat tech (optional?) there will be a new weapon available: high cost, range of 2, ROF of 5, bombard of 8 or 10. This weapon will upgrade with some WWII combat tech to a new kind of artillery with a range of 3, ROF of 4 (for balance reasons) and bombard rating of 16. It should be very expensive and capturable so basically you want to defend the thing with your life because an enemy getting it would spell disaster.
Both types of artillery will upgrade to Radar artillery with a new and improved range of 3 and ROF of 4 and same bombard as now (or perhaps slightly increased because of modern accuracy.)

There's place for change, this is just an initial idea. For balance, the WWI gun can be immobile and have Rebase so it can only be fired from cities, but I'm not sure this is necessary. Also, none of these guns should have lethal bombard.

Rhye,

I was just wondering with the .BIQ you sent me will I encounter any graphic problems or anything because you said you didn't sent the graphics? So basically Im asking is the .BIQ2.629 playable as it is??

KOC

PS.. On another note you know where the goody-huts are near Washington and Lisbon. Heres the problems. The one by Washington is on a tree so it can't become a city of say New York!(So always New York is built in wrong place!) The goody-hut that is near Lisbon it is usally found by Portuagual and is found as a settler and becomes a Portagese city and it should be Seville and thats a Spanish city. So either add that city name to Portugal or do something to fix the goody-hut...because Portugal should be making there 2nd city up North.

Just some ideas.

KOC, he was talking about the RoX alpha he sent to the dev team, not about ROC 2.6x...

No..no...He sent me a file and I was talking about that one.

Thanks anyways...

KOC

As I didn't send you the pediaicons, civilopedia changes won't show.
Smallluxuriesicons instead should be wrong.
But you only need the biq, right? Or do you want the pediaicons, too?

PS.. On another note you know where the goody-huts are near Washington and Lisbon. Heres the problems. The one by Washington is on a tree so it can't become a city of say New York!(So always New York is built in wrong place!)


That's good where it is: I don't want to give America an early bonus city


The goody-hut that is near Lisbon it is usally found by Portuagual and is found as a settler and becomes a Portagese city and it should be Seville and thats a Spanish city. So either add that city name to Portugal or do something to fix the goody-hut...because Portugal should be making there 2nd city up North.


Instead I want the Iberian goody hut to be a possible bonus city. Whoever takes it. It is not only Portugal.

Rhye,

Do you see why now I think America is wrong for this game/mod. Its like we can't give them New York because of becoming more powerful...But yet if we are to have them as America shouldn't we some what make them look real??

KOC

the goody hut isn't where you say New York is.
New York is in the plains below, and AI will never build a city there, because it is too close.
It wouln't built in the goody hut spot, too, as it is too close to Iroquois.

America should be weak and slow until early medieval - then they have various boosts

blasphemous, is this unit (the Paris Gun) German-only?

blasphemous, is this unit (the Paris Gun) German-only?
No, apparently other similar guns were built during WWI but this was the most prominant example. You could, of course, make Lange Max the second German UU, but I think the Zeppelin is much more appropriate...

Just installed the mod, this has to be one of the best mods around. Especially playing with 31 civs and very little load time.

I've added the Light Tank with a WWI tank animation (lower stats, requires rubber).
I left the Tank and the Modern Armor with their tank and their animation.
The Tank is postponed to the beginning of Modern Times and doesn't require rubber.

OK?

No. (!)

In Civ terms the WWI tank was insignificant. They were operational for less than a year and were pretty much competely useless.

The Civ Tank represents a WWII Sherman, a tank which served from mid 1940's into the 1950's. Lets say 10 years.

Tanks developed in the 1950's were used by some nations (e.g. Israel/Egypt/Jordan) into the 1980's. Around 35 years. (Some still use early 1960's designs today).

Civ turns are at least 1 year in length so there is absolutely no point in a WWI style tank unless the game length goes up to 1000 turns.

No, apparently other similar guns were built during WWI but this was the most prominant example. You could, of course, make Lange Max the second German UU, but I think the Zeppelin is much more appropriate...

If it's not a problem having 2 UU's in the same era then I would choose the U- Boat and the Panzer as the 2 UU's. If Germany had built enough submarines they could have drastically affected WWI and defeated the UK in WWII. Pretty significant I would say. The Zeppelin is a bit like the F-15 American UU - it doesn't do anything.

From here (http://www.worldwar1.com/pharc005.htm)

I think this is the kind of thing I meant... What I was thinking is to have it mobile with 1 movement point, unlike what I proposed earlier, and also unlike what I proposed earlier, give it a range of 3 or 4, low bombard rating compared to Artillery and even compared to Cannon (due to the big gun's low accuracy) but a high ROF (say 4 or even 6. If the gun gets lucky it could redline a healty unit in a single barrage.) Should be very expensive so that you don't wanna risk it getting captured by an enemy.
I'll try and do some more reasearch and see how this kind fo gun was developed in WWII.

These guns are singular units, not mass weapons. I don't see them fitting in a game that has only 5 cities representing a country. Weapons like Lange Max and The Karl series from WWII were used EXTREMELY rarely. e.g only 7 Karl's were built and each weapon only fired a couple of dozen shells in their entire life!!

If it's not a problem having 2 UU's in the same era then I would choose the U- Boat and the Panzer as the 2 UU's. If Germany had built enough submarines they could have drastically affected WWI and defeated the UK in WWII. Pretty significant I would say. The Zeppelin is a bit like the F-15 American UU - it doesn't do anything.

You've always being saying that the fighter is useless and the bomber is important.
That is an early bomber

No. (!)

In Civ terms the WWI tank was insignificant. They were operational for less than a year and were pretty much competely useless.

The Civ Tank represents a WWII Sherman, a tank which served from mid 1940's into the 1950's. Lets say 10 years.

Tanks developed in the 1950's were used by some nations (e.g. Israel/Egypt/Jordan) into the 1980's. Around 35 years. (Some still use early 1960's designs today).

Civ turns are at least 1 year in length so there is absolutely no point in a WWI style tank unless the game length goes up to 1000 turns.

Well, let's see:

the new industrial tech tree ends in pre-atomic age.
Fighers, bombers, helicopters, marines, nuclear weapons are in the modern tree.

This means that the "light tank" has to be a tank which has been used since the invention until the 20s.

Instead, the tank in the modern should represent something used since WWII.

For now I'm using the MKIV animation for the first, and the standard animation for the second.

Post me some links if you find some user-made units more appropriate.

Just installed the mod, this has to be one of the best mods around. Especially playing with 31 civs and very little load time.

Thanks for the vote ;)
I hope that when the Xpack is released, you'll say it is "the best" instead of "one of the best" :)

Is it possible for anyone to test the Xpack under development or is it just open for certain people because i'd love to give it a go.

Rhye, having the MKIV in as the first tank is almost like having one of the Wright brothers' later models as the first airplane... The WWI tanks were used for a VERY short while (one game turn), they were ineffective, and had altogether little impact on the great war. Machineguns and artillery made much more of a difference.

Asclepius, are you sure about that? Was there never large-scale use of big artillery?
I think that even if the big guns aren't in, there should be WWII artillery with a range of 2 since with the invention of radio and telephone artillery batteries could accurately and quickly shoot to great distances.

it is open to anybody who wants to stay here and give constant feedback on the alpha I send. It is not for play and not for copying things to other mods.

Rhye, having the MKIV in as the first tank is almost like having one of the Wright brothers' later models as the first airplane... The WWI tanks were used for a VERY short while (one game turn), they were ineffective, and had altogether little impact on the great war. Machineguns and artillery made much more of a difference.



OK, so tell me which are the most important early tanks (from the invention to 1930).

Otherwise I'll remove the early tank, add a tech that allows machineguns (very interesting unit, I think it's a worth addition) and add a scout unit (a jeep?) available with mot. transport (which otherwise would become useless)

OK, so tell me which are the most important early tanks (from the invention to 1930).

Otherwise I'll remove the early tank, add a tech that allows machineguns (very interesting unit, I think it's a worth addition) and add a scout unit (a jeep?) available with mot. transport (which otherwise would become useless)
I tried to look it up a bit and didn't find any info on prominant pre-WWII tanks... I think it would be best for the first tank to be an early-WWII model, the second to be a 1950/60's model, and the last being the MBT.

I've found the Renault FT17, first used in 1918.

I could replace the sherman with the Russian T-55 (cold war).

But this will create a problem with the Panzer: an older unit would replace a newer.
And I can't make it available earlier, as armoured warfare is in the first column of modern techs.

However I remember Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade movie: there was a scene with a tank, very similar to the MKs.

Another thing: is mech.inf. supposed to fire with cannon? Shouldn't it have a gun? It looks very similar to the modern armor. ( :blush: I admit that I have never played civ3 until late modern age....)


EDIT: I've found the right animations. I'll add them in the basic mod with the next patch, as this is an inaccuracy

I've found the Renault FT17, first used in 1918.

I could replace the sherman with the Russian T-55 (cold war).

But this will create a problem with the Panzer: an older unit would replace a newer.
And I can't make it available earlier, as armoured warfare is in the first column of modern techs.

However I remember Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade movie: there was a scene with a tank, very similar to the MKs.
I don't think any tank before WWII was ever used to real effect, it would be better to have the first tank be the regular current tank (with slightly lowered stats perhaps), then have it upgrade to a cold war tank, and then to MBT if you have the aluminum and the cash...

I don't think any tank before WWII was ever used to real effect, it would be better to have the first tank be the regular current tank (with slightly lowered stats perhaps), then have it upgrade to a cold war tank, and then to MBT if you have the aluminum and the cash...

Remember that the early tank will require rubber.
And no armies required rubber by WWII.

So, if you don't want the WWI tank, instead of putting there a WWII tank (causing problems to the panzer, too) I'll choose the alternative solution:
-addition of the machinegunner together with the infantry (and they will require rubber)
-addition of a sort of a jeep (upgrade of the explorer) with motor.transp.
-no tanks added.

Rhye, having the MKIV in as the first tank is almost like having one of the Wright brothers' later models as the first airplane... The WWI tanks were used for a VERY short while (one game turn), they were ineffective, and had altogether little impact on the great war. Machineguns and artillery made much more of a difference.

Asclepius, are you sure about that? Was there never large-scale use of big artillery?
I think that even if the big guns aren't in, there should be WWII artillery with a range of 2 since with the invention of radio and telephone artillery batteries could accurately and quickly shoot to great distances.

I meant that super heavy artillery wasn't used much, certainly not after WWI. Anything above 40cm calibre and took a couple of days to set up I would leave out. The shelling of Paris with the "Paris Gun" was psycologically important but militarily insignificant. Each shell fired did barely any significant damage and its best strike was a lucky shot into a church. The huge siege guns used by England and Germany were only "useful" in static situations and in game terms couldn't move at all.

Ordinary artillery pieces up to 15cm are very important and when used "en masse" have made a HUGE impact on modern warfare. Some sort of artillery and mobile artillery has to be kept in the game.

Remember that the early tank will require rubber.
And no armies required rubber by WWII.

So, if you don't want the WWI tank, instead of putting there a WWII tank (causing problems to the panzer, too) I'll choose the alternative solution:
-addition of the machinegunner together with the infantry (and they will require rubber)
-addition of a sort of a jeep (upgrade of the explorer) with motor.transp.
-no tanks added.

This is beginning to lose my vote.

Jeeps shouldn't be an individual unit, motorization should be represented by increasing the movement of Infantry units.

Then I won't add anything for now.

I need something (not necessairly a unit) to justify the presence of motorized tranportation.

Now that tanks are at the beginning of the new age, there's a need for a unit that requires rubber.
The standing machinegunner is a possibility. They could have very high defense and be immobile, and they could upgrade to TOW infantry. That could cause a stats adjustment for the regular infantry.

Why should machinegunners be immobile? oO
I propose instead that you have motorized transport add Motorized Infantry (or Mobile Infantry) which is simply infantry in APCs/Jeeps with slightly better attack (due to maneuverability) and slightly lowered defense (for balance and so machinegunners and regular infantry are still useful) with 2 movement points rather than 1, and then you can have machinegunners with a very high defensive bombard and good defense and moderate attack with only 1 movement. Regular infantry and machinegunners will be used for defense, mobile infantry will be used for attack.
Mobile infantry will upgrade to mechanized infantry, machinegunner will upgrade to TOW, and regular infantry will upgrade to Modern Infantry (or something of the sort).

Also Mortar Infantry should be added with a moderate bombard, range 1, high ROF, and basic combat capabilities (and 1 movement.) Don't know if they should upgrade to a modern version fo the same unit or to something different that replaces it, but mortars should be in.

too much! too much! 6 or 8 infantry units are too much.
remember how few turns there are in modern age. It already is very crowded.

Currently there are 3 infantries:

infantry
mech.inf
TOW Inf (as it is no longer a guerrilla)

The machinegunner seems the best complement. They could upgrade to TOW.
And they could be the unit that requires rubber (instead of tanks)



p.s. just checked TGW, machinegunner is not immobile. I didn't recall correctly

Then just add machinegunners that upgrade to TOW and Mobile Infantry that upgrades to Mech Inf... You can have normal infantry upgrade to TOW as well and make TOW the modern defense unit with Mech Inf being tagged as offensive as well a defensive and so you hae a bit of diversity in modern war.

I've just sent the new alpha (0.21).

In the mail I wrote:

"There are no unit animations, no civilopedia, no arrows in the tech tree (but you can guess the path clicking on the tech)
No additional warrior for the romans (will be added together with the flavour units).
French UU is temporary Grand Battery, American is A-Bomb. This may change.
No decision taken about modern units additions. "


Probably now (after taken a look at the new trees) you'll understand my point of view.
In the standard game you have 100 turns (of 540) dedicated to the 50s to nowadays, and it has more variety than ancient and medieval.
In the basic mod the last age is about 76 turns.
In the add-on it will be 86 turns comprehensive of the 30s and 40s (there's been a shift to right of the techs).
This is the reason for I pay much attention to what I add.

But still, you have to remember that these turns are longer and much mroe is done in every turn. In the middle ages you simply wouldn't have the capacity to mass produce combined arms beyond the basic lines now included.
In the modern age you can usually afford to build a varied army with specialized units meant for specific jobs as long as you have good infrastructure (something I'm struggling with in my current game as Persia where my empire outgrew itself and so half my cities are still building infrastructure after the space race has started.)
I think it would be worth a try to add Mobile Infantry and Machinegunner. If we see it doesn't work out well we can remove one of them or even both.
Waht exactly changed in the new alpha? (New tech tree? :D) What specifically should we test?

I would agree with the addition of a Mobile Infantry unit, but not with the Machine Gunner.

In my mind, the standard infantry unit represents three technically different things converging into one combined tactic. First, you've got trench warfare - dudes with rifles sitting in trenches. Second, you've got machine gun nests dotted along the trenches. And thirdly, you've got mortar pipes sitting behind the trench lines firing. All it is is one organized fighting unit, not three different unit - the Civ3 battle engine wouldn't handle different units well enough to split them up.

The Mobile Infantry, though, is necessary. Maybe 9/8/2, available with Motorized Transportation. It'd create a much needed mid step between Cavalry and whatever is decided to be the first tank.

Speaking of tanks: I agree with Blasphemous there. The line should start with a WWII tank, go to the Chieftan, and end with the Main Battle Tank. The WWI tanks weren't useful enough to include in the mod, and there seems to be too much space and innovation between the WWII tank and the Main Battle Tank to leave it as is.

I just started a new test game with 0.21 and noticed that workers can build radar towers from 4000 BC. I assume this isn't by design.

The new tech tree looks interesting.

I just started a new test game with 0.21 and noticed that workers can build radar towers from 4000 BC. I assume this isn't by design.

The new tech tree looks interesting.

of course it isn't. If this causes problems in your game, restart moving it to advanced flight (in the editor, go to "worker jobs")

The Mobile Infantry, though, is necessary. Maybe 9/8/2, available with Motorized Transportation. It'd create a much needed mid step between Cavalry and whatever is decided to be the first tank.


very ugly stats, they seem a super-cavalry. A unit that never existed.

And BTW doesn't railroads make the infantry "mobile"?


I had the idea of the machine gun watching how The Great War scenario works: I tried to attack many times, and often my units died by enemy machinegun (it's 1/12/1 there). Very realistic bloodbath, typical of WWI.

another thing:

you'll notice that there's an empty tech called "ritual sacrifice".

I'd like to set it to allow sacrifices of units enslaved by native american civs.
The mechanism is the same: make their enslave result in a different worker.
In this way only units captured by mesoamericans will have the sacrifice "ability".

To make the tech (not required for era) not useless to most of the civs, I'll add something else. It seems a good place to put a mesoamerican wonder in.

very ugly stats, they seem a super-cavalry. A unit that never existed.
Okay, then make it 9/7/2 and wheeled (and maybe make regular infantry unwheeled.) And their price will balance it anyway. And this unit definately DID exist, starting WWII infantry has always been transported with motorized vehicles from place to place.

Okay, then make it 9/7/2 and wheeled (and maybe make regular infantry unwheeled.)

Being non-wheeled is a guerrilla peculiarity


And this unit definately DID exist, starting WWII infantry has always been transported with motorized vehicles from place to place.

there are railroads

1) Being non-wheeled is a guerrilla peculiarity
2) there are railroads
1. Bleh.
2. I'm not talking about trains, I'm talking about APCs, trucks, and Jeeps that carried troops from place to place.
Log onto ICQ, I sent you a message.

My thoughts on adding modern units:


A mobile infantry unit is reasonable. Partly because it could upgrade to Mech Infantry, and that would avoid the somewhat awkward Infantry to Mech Infantry upgrade. However, it's not necessary.

I think the unit that really needs to be added is a modern infantry. Stock Civ3 would have it so that all modern wars between powers with proper resources are fought with armored vehicles. This is very unrealistic. Even countries like America don't put all their troops in Bradleys and M1 Abrams. It's also unrealistic for Infantry to upgrade to Mech Infantry. It is also good to have a regular foot unit to replace the World War I style Infantry unit in the Modern Age.

A machine gunner unit would also be a good idea. Then regular Infantry could be more balanced between attack and defense, and machine gunners would briefly be very useful until tanks came along.

I don't think that a third tank unit is necessary. The first Civ3 tank is representative of a WWII tank, which is a reasonable place for the tank line to start. Let's say that the Civ3 Tank comes in 1940. Let's say that the Modern Armor comes in 1980. It's not necessary to add a tank in between. Civ3 units should be useful for more than 20 turns.

great mod, my first game was as the arabs and it is hard with the arabs, you really only have room for four cities on the pennuslia. But i battle and annexed Israel, choped a chunk of persia, ate babylon, a took a city from the ottomans. Gets a bit slow by 1200 ad with 31 civs thou. But before it got slow with 15 civs at 800ad!!!!!! with normal game

IMO modern infantry is already represented by diversification: marines+paratroopers+mech.inf+TOW inf.

1. Bleh.
2. I'm not talking about trains, I'm talking about APCs, trucks, and Jeeps that carried troops from place to place.

1. guerrillas will be non-wheeled and will treat all squares as roads.
2. It seems that early tanks were big APCs. The choice is kinda difficult now between a mobile vehicle and a machinegunner.
However a unit that requires rubber IS NEEDED

But it's odd to have the main infantry line either disappear in the modern age or upgrade to a non-infantry unit.

Whats the rough time line of this Xpack due date?? 1 week or longer?

KOC

Whats the rough time line of this Xpack due date?? 1 week or longer?

KOC

Judging by the posts, my guess- longer:)

Just wondering. I know all you Modders hate Railroads because they destroy certain elements to the gameplay. But is it possible to change the railroad to reduce the movement cost from a third to something smaller?

Whats the rough time line of this Xpack due date?? 1 week or longer?

KOC


we are currently at 1/3 of the work.
But I'm usually fast in doing these things. If I get the necessary support, I can bet that it will be released by the end of October.

But it's odd to have the main infantry line either disappear in the modern age or upgrade to a non-infantry unit.

The best would be a multi-hierarchy, which isn't possible in civ3 :(

I like the idea of a machinegunner, the idea of a unit between cav and tank is ridiculous, there wasnt one look at WWI or the Crimean, also why not just make some kind of half decent infantry or even leave the standard one and make the mech infantry a non-upgrade-to build thing. That way you can play USA with the Stryker Brigades and M1A1 Abrams Tanks all you want, but the GI is still the primary defender.

In fact, you could call it that: General Infantry. Has a nice ring to it, would represent the end of the foot defender path, with slightly higher stats/cost than WWI infantry.

Classes, yesterday was busy so I didnt get a chance to read everything, if this is a restatement just ignore it, I like the idea of jeeps but it sounds kinda worthless as the world is explored by then and no one builds scouts anyway except maybe in multiplayer.

Having 1,001 ideas for units is nice but there seem to be quite a few issues in the early game. Are people actually playtesting 0.21 or just making up units?

Having 1,001 ideas for units is nice but there seem to be quite a few issues in the early game. Are people actually playtesting 0.21 or just making up units?

Guilty on both counts M'lud.

Well at least I was testing .11. I've only just downloaded .21. I found the defensive archers and offensive pikemen a little strange to be honest. Also the increased move cost in the coast was probably the reason I only saw galleys and no other early ships.

Got any comments, Horton, or are you mailing Rhye direct?

I found the defensive archers and offensive pikemen a little strange to be honest.


Yes I know that's strange at first, but it's only a matter of getting used to the new stats.


Also the increased move cost in the coast was probably the reason I only saw galleys and no other early ships.


I've seen both galleys and dhows around.
BTW I forgot to add a +1 movement to caravels and post-caravels

I like the idea of jeeps but it sounds kinda worthless as the world is explored by then and no one builds scouts anyway except maybe in multiplayer.

Probably I'll add the graphics only. It will replace the explorer graphics in modern times. And another unit graphics will replace in industrial.

It seems that early tanks were big APCs. The choice is kinda difficult now between a mobile vehicle and a machinegunner.
However a unit that requires rubber IS NEEDED
You shouldn't have to choose, both had a colossal effect on modern warfare.
I think machinegunner should come in at the same time as infantry, it should have a higher defense than infantry but only something like 4 attack, and infantry should lose a bit of defense because the real reason for Infantry having so much in the first place is that it represents ALL of trench warfare, including machineguns and mortars.
Then with motorized transport you put in Mobile Infantry which have same attack but less defense as compared to regular infantry, and have 2 movement. Infantry was moved around in APCs, trucks, and jeeps since the beginning of WWII if not earlier.
So here's what I propose you have:
Infantry stats now 7/8/1, cost hould be adjusted appropriately. Upgrades either to Mech Inf or a new modern infantry (GI?) that can be added to continue the foot defender line which irrationally dies out in the original game.
Machinegunner added with Conscription, stats 4/11/1, should be about same cost as Infantry and should require Rubber as well. Upgrades to TOW.
Mobile Infantry added with Mo Trans, stats 8/6/2, wheeled, should cost a bit more than the other two and also require Rubber. Should upgrade to Mech Inf.

Rhye, FYI, 0.21 is crashing due to a missing art\units\crossbowman\crossbowman.ini file.

Rhye, FYI, 0.21 is crashing due to a missing art\units\crossbowman\crossbowman.ini file.

I forgot to change the animname.
You can keep playing your game with a temporary fix.
Add this zip into Rhye's of Civilization X\art\units

I forgot to change the animname.
You can keep playing your game with a temporary fix.
Add this zip into Rhye's of Civilization X\art\units

Also the radio tower in 4000bc is more than a small problem as it leaves the mongols, etc. with no worker! Fixed it myself but for the other testers you have to change this or the AI civs aren't just crippled but they have both of their legs broken.... ;)

Wanna hear a funny story?

I had no clue that this was a playable version :blush:

I have been looking at the tech tree and editor this whole time and wondering how the heck you guys were getting so much test data.

So SHOOT me ;p

I will start playing this very instant

Also the radio tower in 4000bc is more than a small problem as it leaves the mongols, etc. with no worker! Fixed it myself but for the other testers you have to change this or the AI civs aren't just crippled but they have both of their legs broken.... ;)

If you give immediate feedback (about anything, for example about the UUs) on what you have I can give you an improved version instead of simply what you have with the fixes

I think I'll change Ethiopian UU.
That animation is necessary for being a flavour unit, and it isn't very accurate (I haven't good photos of the shiftas: it is a very generic term).

Now, do you know any unit that were tipically abyssinian?

Rhye, Any word on the graphic units you need for 2.63?

KOC

The Great Lighthouse wonder doesn't seem to have any effect. The extra move point doesn't allow any actual extra movement due to the coast effects. By the time it becomes useful with later vesels it is almost obsolete.

Rhye, Any word on the graphic units you need for 2.63?

KOC

KOC, ask DomPedro.

You can check it here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2222650#post2222650

I usually go there to see if there are any news

The Great Lighthouse wonder doesn't seem to have any effect. The extra move point doesn't allow any actual extra movement due to the coast effects. By the time it becomes useful with later vesels it is almost obsolete.

I forgot to make galleys ignore coast movement. Otherwise they wouldn't have any advantage on junks.

And you are right, the mov.cost make me now increase The Great Lighthouse effect: +2 ship mov.

Played as Rome for a bit, found legions extremely overpriced vs. combat effectiveness and too slow at road building to be really worth using for that. Can they build fortresses in one turn? That would be logical ;p

Strange that there is a tech, fortification which, according to the civilopedia, does not grant the ability to create fortifications. That seems to be reserved for construction.

HOWEVER, since I did not get to construction before noticing the galley and radar tower I have no clue if this is accurate. Would you like us to start on research on civlopedia entries for the various techs/units you have added?

FOUND ANOTHER BUG:

Swordsmen are not set to require iron.

Played as Rome for a bit, found legions extremely overpriced vs. combat effectiveness and too slow at road building to be really worth using for that. Can they build fortresses in one turn? That would be logical ;p

Strange that there is a tech, fortification which, according to the civilopedia, does not grant the ability to create fortifications. That seems to be reserved for construction.

HOWEVER, since I did not get to construction before noticing the galley and radar tower I have no clue if this is accurate. Would you like us to start on research on civlopedia entries for the various techs/units you have added?

FOUND ANOTHER BUG:

Swordsmen are not set to require iron.

-> legionaries will be upgradeable from warriors in a future version (when I add the flavour units). I'm waiting for a pratical reason.

->barricade moved to fortification, plant forest moved to invention

->swordsmen will not require iron. They are part of the "cheap" chain.

V0.22 sent.
Fully playable (fixed pediaicons); some fixes (some of them mentioned in previous posts), arrows added to the tech tree.

Are Hoplites REALLY supposed to be available at pottery? That one makes very little/no sense at this end

Horse archer unit still has knight graphics

Are Hoplites REALLY supposed to be available at pottery? That one makes very little/no sense at this end

Really? This is a mistake. Another mismatch caused by the new tech tree

Horse archer unit still has knight graphics

This isn't a mistake - I've sent you a version with no graphics to obtain a small filesize. No animations for any new unit at all. They stay in my HD.

Ok ;p

Just some things ive noticed haha

Confirm Saracen bowman as second UU for Arabia?

Playing them, so far so good, especially with new lack of need for iron ;p

Trireme does not upgrade... is this on purpose?

Confirm Saracen bowman as second UU for Arabia?


Yes, as I have no valid alternatives.



Trireme does not upgrade... is this on purpose?


Trireme should upgrade. Everything's OK in the editor. Are you sure they can't?

Sorry for not being so responsive/active lately...
I got back to playing through Deus Ex and have been spending a bit too much time on that (when I tried just a minute ago to remember why my last few days seem empty I realized that it was because I was playing Deus Ex which seems to simply be a different life I have to share my time with. What a game!)
I'll try and finish my 2.62 game tomorrow (gonna be tough, got into a space race after planning for imperialism) and get to testing 0.22.

OK. Tomorrow I'll go to Genova, all day long. I'll be at home only in the morning and in the following night.

The new tech tree looks great. I think I need to play a game or two to make sure the time is scaled properly.

BTW, in addition to the Hoplite being available at Pottery, the Granary is available at Bronze Working, which is just as weird.

The new tech tree looks great. I think I need to play a game or two to make sure the time is scaled properly.

Tech costs haven't been updated to the new tree. They will need some changes.

Well, I could do that anytime. I was still waiting for a reply on the tobacco question.
How about making two different types of tabacco resourses and make one appear later, it is more realistic?

Not sure about Triremes, will check later.

Had an idea to make naval movements more realistic, but am not finished testing it yet; if it works should change a few things for the better ;p

Wont take like thirty turns to go from england to india, but without messing with the boats themselves.

Hello Rhye,

the comments on your mod and the highly detailed work you did to describe it intrigued me so much that I can't wait to play it.
However I've been trying for most of my weekend now to get started, with very little result.
I believe some of these difficulties have to do with the fact that I have the italian version of Civ III (which can't be installed in the english language: just italian!) on which I installed the english version of Conquests.
So I am going to write you in italian from now on, with apologies to our international friends, who anyhow probably can't care less for the trouble of the italian version.

Allora, ho seguito le tue istruzioni e ho installato il patch 1.22 per Conquest in inglese. Ho copiato i tuoi 4 zipfile, li ho decompressi e riuniti nelle due directory Art e Text che ho salvato sotto una directory "Rhye's of Civilization".
Ho messo il tutto sotto Conquests/Scenarios.
Niente da fare.
Allora ho spostato tutti i file di Art e Text nelle rispettive directory direttamente sotto Conquests, avendo cura di non cancellare le directory esistenti e cambiando solo i file da te modificati.
Mi sono accorto che all'apertura il programma cercava i file in inglese delle unità di Civ II (es: Settler e non Colone) così ho cambiato il nome delle unità nelle directory di Civilization III/Art/Units una ad una, usando i nomi inglesi.
OK, ora ci siamo. Tutto funziona, ma quando inizia la partita stranamente i messaggi sono tutti sballati (vedi file allegati). E' come se leggesse i file in Text/Labels nell'ordine sbagliato.
Curiosamente, se inizio una partita normale (anziché lo scenario "Rhye's..." da "Civ-content") il testo viene letto correttamente.

Qui mi sono fermato, scoraggiato.

Mi potresti aiutare? non vedo l'ora di provare il tuo scenario!

grazie fin d'ora per la tua risposta

Staf48

Wow, Italian is a lot like Spanish. I can read that.



Elephants and Camels come available at Mounted Combat, but the Elephant and Camel units come one tech before, at Riding. There's no possible way that the Elephant and Camel units can be built until the resources are discovered, so there's no reason to have the units available one tech before.

I'm going to use this post to sum up all the tech tree errors, or questionable prerequisites.

1. The Hoplite is available at Pottery instead of Bronze Working like other spear units.
2. The Granary is available with Bronze Working instead of Pottery, which is pretty questionable.
3. The Phoenician Bireme comes available at Bronze Working. No other boats come on this path. All other Ancient boats come with Pottery or Sailing.
4. Monotheism doesn't seem to do anything, and both Polytheism and Monotheism are required advances. Is there something in store for these techs that I haven't noticed?
5. The Elephant Archer and Camel Rider come available at Riding, but they can't possibly be used until Elephants and Camels are discovered with Mounted Combat.
6. Does Ritual Sacrifice do anything?

How about making two different types of tabacco reso